CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

352 ITR 480Supreme Court of India2013#104 most cited

What is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son authority for?

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

581

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son · Section 133A · survey proceedings · evidentiary value · statement on oath · corroborative evidence · additions to income · uncorroborated statement · basis of assessment · Section 131 · retracted statement

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 413254 CTR 22825 Taxmann 413

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 147Section 132(4)Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)survey under section 133aretracted statementsection 158bbstatement under section 132(4)section 133asection 133section 292cblock periodsection 132(4)loose paperssection 131

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1595/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…law that statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same are backed by credible evidences. This position has been settled by hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s S. Khader Khan & Sons (25 Taxmann.com 413). The CBDT instructions No. F.No.286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II) dated 18/12/2014 also discourages confessional statements without any credible evidences. Thus, in our considered view not much reliance could be placed on above stated statements. 9.1 We also notice that the lending capacity of the lender SPL has been duly examined by the coordina…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1 Thane, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions), Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 378/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 376/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. आयकर अपीलीय आधकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI 22IMPARTIAL EASY AND SPEEDY JUSTICE Page 10 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377,…

Mumbra Shikhshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 375/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. आयकर अपीलीय आधकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU 22IMPARTIAL EASY AND SPEEDY JUSTICE Page 10 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377…

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e AO rests on the statement recorded during the survey. Thus, the AO could not have relied on the retracted statement as held in the case of CIT vs S. Khadar Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras), which was later upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court in S. Khader Khan Son 25 Taxmann.com 413 (SC). The statement recorded during the survey do not carry any evidentiary value and the assessment should have been completed on the basis of audited accounts. The ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18…

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…y the Tribunal. 28. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 29. The appeal is, accordingly, closed." 9. We further place our reliance on the following case laws: Supreme Court of India in case of CIT Vs S Khader Khan Sons.352 ITR 480 (SC) Civil Appeal No.6747/2012 order dated 20.09.2012 (DPB-5) Gujrat High Court in case of CIT Vs Shardaben Modi Tax Appeal No.123/2013 order dated 30.04.2013 (DPB 6-12) Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Central-3 Vs Anand Kumar Jain HUF ITA 23/2021 order dated 12.02.2021 (DPB 13-23) Rajasthan High Court in case of Micro Marble P Ltd Vs ITO Wa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1267/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…wer pedestal and the statement u/s. 133A of the Act cannot be even recorded on oath, which if recorded cannot be admissible/relied upon or acted upon. For this, we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan Son (352 352 ITR 480) wherein it has been held that Section 133A of the Act does not empower any income tax authorities to examine any person on oath, hence any such statement lacks evidentiary value and any admission made during the survey cannot by itself be made the basis of addition. 18. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgme…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1266/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…wer pedestal and the statement u/s. 133A of the Act cannot be even recorded on oath, which if recorded cannot be admissible/relied upon or acted upon. For this, we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan Son (352 352 ITR 480) wherein it has been held that Section 133A of the Act does not empower any income tax authorities to examine any person on oath, hence any such statement lacks evidentiary value and any admission made during the survey cannot by itself be made the basis of addition. 18. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgme…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhagvanji Prabhubhai Amrutiya, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 142/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…recorded during the survey in the case of third party. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), which has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful for, or relevant to any proceeding under the Act.…

The ACIT, Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot vs. Expert Particle Board, Morbi

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee, ( in CO No

ITA 139/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.139/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Expert Particle Board बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Survey No.111, 8-A National Vs. Highway B/H. Bharatinagar Iti, Ravapar Nadi Morbi 363 642. Pan : Aahfe 0299 G आयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.142/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.05/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bhagvaji Prabhubhai बनाम Cent.Cir.2, Rajkot. Amrutiya, Meera Park-2 Vs. House No.1, Vavdi Road Morbi. Pan : Aiwpa 0121 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20 & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37Section 69ASection 69B

…recorded during the survey in the case of third party. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), which has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 254 CTR 228(SC) by dismissing the SLP of the revenue. Reliance also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), wherein, it is held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful for, or relevant to any proceeding under the Act.…

M/S. Golden Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2993/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2990, 2992 & 2993/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Babu, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…of statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act. The Ld. AR has stated that the A.O has reopened the assessment on the basis of statement of the Director, recorded u/s. 133A of the Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son [2012] 352 ITR 480 (SC) has held that Section 133A of the Act does not empower tax authorities to examine any person on oath. It was further stated that the assessee has not included the admitted income in the return of income filled in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which amounts to retraction from the statement made u/s. 133A of the Act. The Ld. AR h…

M/S. Golden Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2992/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2990, 2992 & 2993/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Babu, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…of statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act. The Ld. AR has stated that the A.O has reopened the assessment on the basis of statement of the Director, recorded u/s. 133A of the Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son [2012] 352 ITR 480 (SC) has held that Section 133A of the Act does not empower tax authorities to examine any person on oath. It was further stated that the assessee has not included the admitted income in the return of income filled in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which amounts to retraction from the statement made u/s. 133A of the Act. The Ld. AR h…

M/S. Golden Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle.2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2990/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2990, 2992 & 2993/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri Mohan Babu, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…of statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act. The Ld. AR has stated that the A.O has reopened the assessment on the basis of statement of the Director, recorded u/s. 133A of the Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son [2012] 352 ITR 480 (SC) has held that Section 133A of the Act does not empower tax authorities to examine any person on oath. It was further stated that the assessee has not included the admitted income in the return of income filled in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which amounts to retraction from the statement made u/s. 133A of the Act. The Ld. AR h…

Priya Construction, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1200/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1200/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 M/S. Priya Construction, The Deputy Commissioner 1/8, Senthilagam, Vs. Of Income Tax, Kadachanallur, Central Circle, Pallipalayam Post, Salem. Iyenthupanai, Tiruchengode Tk, Namakkal – 638 008. Pan: Aahfp 8616N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Bipin C.N., Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…books of account, subsequently, a statement was recorded u/s 133A to record the fact of such non- production, which was acceded to by the authorised signatory of the assessee. So in contradistinction to the referred case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son [(2012) 352 ITR 480 (SC)], in the present case the primary evidence is the finding in the survey of such inflated expenses booked in the books of account which could not be substantiated by the assessee which was further corroborated by the Department by recording the statement u/s 133A of the Act. The assessee did not discharge the onus of proving the contrary to t…

Rajender Reddy Gunna, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1849/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…relied upon decision of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gajjam Chinna Yellappa vs., Income Tax Officer [2015] 370 ITR 671 and also the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Salem vs., S. Khader Khan Son [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC). The Learned Counsel for the Assessee has further made an alternative argument and submitted that, if at all the addition towards donation from undisclosed income is sustained, then, the benefit of telescoping should be allowed out of additions made towards undisclosed income from land transactions. 60. Sri Gurpreet Singh learned Sr. AR for…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore vs. Ram Battery India Private Limited, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1167/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1167/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ram Battery India Private Tax, Limited, Central Circle-1, No.406, Perundurai Road, Coimbatore Erode, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. [Pan: Aagcr3898A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.37/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Battery India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of No.406, Perundurai Road, Erode, Income Tax, Tamil Nadu- 638 009. Central Circle-1, [Pan: Aagcr3898A] Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Cross Objector/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Ms. R.Anitha, Addl. Cit. : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) For Cross Objector / Respondent सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal (Ita No.1167/Chny/2025) Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)

Section 131Section 133A

…However, the AO has made the addition in the current year, more particularly in the absence of any corroborative evidence during survey. The assessee has placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the CBDT instruction dated 10.03.2003 in F.NO. 286/2/2003-IT (INV. II). ITA No.1167 & CO-37/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) Ram Battery India Pvt Ltd :: 5 :: 6. The ld. CIT(A), upon hearing the assessee on the issue of Unexplained Investment of Rs.1,53,47,650/- has passed following order as under: On perusal of the above statement recorded from…

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 569/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.568 and 569/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 Shri. Krishnamurthy, Vs. DCIT, Represented by his LR Smt. Nagarathnamma, Circle –2(1), No.152, 2nd Floor, Hanuman Chambers, Bangalore. 7th Cross, 2nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. PAN : ADMPK 2463 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O…

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 568/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 234A

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.568 and 569/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 Shri. Krishnamurthy, Vs. DCIT, Represented by his LR Smt. Nagarathnamma, Circle –2(1), No.152, 2nd Floor, Hanuman Chambers, Bangalore. 7th Cross, 2nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. PAN : ADMPK 2463 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O…